Sec 527), and is sustained, according to the learned editor, by Leather Cloth Co

v. Lorsont, L. R. 9 Eq. 345; see Lange v. Werk, 2 Oh. St. 519.

A covenant not to sell marl off the vendor's remaining adjacent land has been held void. Brewer v. Marshall, 4 C. E. Green, 537. And so of an agreement not to manufacture goods in general. Taylor v. Blanchard, 13 Allen, 370; Keeler v. Taylor, 53 Penn. St. 468; though see Gillis v. Hall, 2 Brewst. 342.

1 See Horner v. Graves, 7 Bing. 743; Crawford v. Wick, 18 Oh. St. 190; Beard v. Dennis, 6 Ind. 200.

2 Mitchel v. Reynolds, 1 P. Wms. 181; and notes in 1 Smith's Leading Case3; Mallon v. May, 11 M. & W. 653; Leather Cloth Co. v. Lorsont, L. R. 9 Eq. 345; Whitney v. Slayton, 40 Me. 224; Dean v. Emerson, 102 Mass. 480; Noble v. Bates, 7 Cow. 307; Richardson v. Peacock, 33 N. J. Eq. 597; Guerand v. Dandelet, 32 Md. 561; even be beneficial to the country," argues Judge Story, " that a particular place should not be overstocked with artisans or other persons engaged in a particular trade or business;1 or a particular trade may be promoted by being for a short period limited to a few persons; especially if it be a foreign trade, recently discovered, and it can be beneficial but to a small body of adventurers."2 Hence contracts by which a party agrees not to carry on a specific business within certain reasonable limits, will be sustained. " When a limit of space is imposed, the public, on the one hand, do not lose altogether the services of the party in the particular trade - he will carry it on in the same way elsewhere; nor within the limited space will they be deprived of the benefits of the trade being carried on, because the party with whom the contract is made will probably within those limits exercise it himself. But where a general restriction, limited only as to time, is imposed, the public are altogether losers, for that time, of the services of the individual, and do not derive any benefit in return."3 On the other hand, the protection is to be made commensurate with the risk; and, as we have seen, a confidential agent will not be permitted to carry on a business in any place competing with employers with whom he promised not to compete.4.

Warfield v. Booth, 33 Md. 63; Lange v. Werk, 2 Oh. St. 519; Bowser v. Bliss, 7 Blackf. 344; Heichew v. Hamilton, 4 Greene (Iowa), 317; Hedge v. Lowe, 47 Iowa, 137; Smalley v. Greene, 52 Iowa, 241.

1 Perkins v. Lyman, 9 Mass. 522.

2 Story's Eq. Jur. sec 292; citing Bry-son v. Whitehead, 1 Sim. & St. 74; Vickery v. Welch, 19 Pick. 523; see Taylor v. Blanchard, 13 Allen, 370; Gillis v. Hall, 2 Brewst. 342; Keeler v. Taylor, 53 Penn. St. 467. An agreement by a physician, on selling his practice, not to "re-settle" in the same town, has been held not to preclude him from practising in such town after becoming resident in another town. Haldeman v. Simonton, 55 Iowa, 144. As to agreement by retiring partner not to interfere see Dethlefs v. Tamson, 7 Daly, 354.

3 Parke, B., Ward v. Byrne, 5 M. & W. 562; adopted in Leake 2d ed. 735, citing further Hinde v. Gray, 1 M. & G. 195; Allsopp v. Wheatcroft, L. R. 15 Eq. 59.

4 Rousillon v. Rousillon, supra, sec 430. In Gale v. Kalamazoo, 23 Mich. 344, an agreement by a city not to license more than one market was held void. A contract by which a telephone company gives preference to certain parties, is void when conflicting with a local statute. State v. Telephone Co., 36 Ohio St. 396.